[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1407111309150.4777@gentwo.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:10:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com,
sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to
non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I was figuring that a fair number of the kthreads might eventually
> > be using this, not just for the grace-period kthreads.
>
> Ok makes sense. But can we just rename the cpumask to housekeeping_mask?
That would imply that all no-nohz processors are housekeeping? So all
processors with a tick are housekeeping?
Could we make that set configurable? Ideally I'd like to have the ability
restrict the housekeeping to one processor.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists